Approach against ATGM concealed positions

[Euri]

Since I have no military background my question may come as elementary but it is something it always bothers me.

Assuming one has a mixed force (i.e 3-4 tanks, some of AFVs & personnel carriers (Bradleys and Strykes) and Jeeps coupled with helo support and needs to travel a relatively open area with small villages here and there and other terrain suitable for concealment, what is the "by the book" approach in order to "smoke out" hidden ATGMs?

Do you "lead with armor" or do you place it on an overwatch position? Do you suppress every single house and orchard you have LOS to? (sounds meticulous but there is the time limit...)

I am playing mission 2 of the German Campaign right now and there is too much uncertainty in relation to the enemy positions and the terrain. Hence the nature of my question

Well?

[Erik Springelkamp]

The Israelis never solved the problem in the last Lebanon War.

I think this question is at the core of playing CMSF.

And if there were an infallible solution, the game would no longer be interesting.

[ZPB II]

If you're facing older, wire-guided ATGMs you can try moving very fast perpendicular to their position with cover arcs. Overwatch can then eliminate the gunners before the missiles land. Doesn't work against never ones, you'll only expose your vulnerable side.

[Perforator]

The Israelis never solved the problem in the last Lebanon War.

I think this question is at the core of playing CMSF.

And if there were an infallible solution, the game would no longer be interesting.

Totally agree.

Found an interesting publication about Hezbollah using Kornet ATGM's against Israeli armour during the 2006 war -

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub882.pdf

[Euri]

*********SPOILERS***********

In said mission (2nd of German Campaign) I basically followed this approach:

Tanks left far behind in overwatch positions. Almost all tank gun-shots were made at +1km distances.

Then I decided to follow the slow and meticulous approach. Heavy suppressive fire to all multi-storey buildings and as well as to all buildings facing the direction of my approach.

Troop carriers were sent next to suppressed building disembarking troops. Then troops moved in bounds trough the villages.

The Result: I cleared all the right side of the map and the outskirts of the bigger town at the right...and of course i run out of time... Given that I had only 6 mean KIA or WIA and the enemy around 60% of its troops I got a tactical victory.

However: In real life i guess a commander cannot shoot in advance at any building in sight. This will probably cause political repercussions and rightly so...

[BlackMoria]

Euri:

The methodology and tactics I use quite successfully (I have very few if any vehicle casualties usually) are as follows:

Study the ground and note covered postions and dead ground in relation to where you suspect enemy positions are. Whenever possible, use approaches that allow for cover and concealed movement. The fastest or easy going route is not necessarily the best route to get from A to B.

Think about where the enemy forces might be and you do that by thinking where would you put forces to defeat yourself. In nearly 100% of scenarios, the enemy ATGMs are near the back of the map to maximize engagement ranges so you spend the max time in their engagement envelope and minimize your weapon response (ie. out of your small arms effective range).

So, if you suspect ATGMs look for possible deployment areas like hill features or building near the back of the map and see if there is a route you can with minimal exposure to the feature. Also, use artillery or air strikes to hit suspected positions. Yes, it is a crap shoot because you might be engaging nothing but for myself, I have found that there is something there about 80-85% of the time - not perfect clairvoyance but guessing right 80-85% of the time that something is there is damn good and I have killed potentially troublesome ATGMs without they ever have seen me and opening fire.

At setup, get eyes on your manuever area whenever possible. Don't be so quick to get moving. Watch for a few minutes. Usually, if you got good troops and in good observation, you can spot a few enemy positions.

Work units into overwatch firing postions or have them already setup. Now, short run some units towards the nearest cover on your selected route. If there is enemy nearby, they most likely will start engaging your forces. Watch and determine the direction of fire if you don't get any revealed units. Since I play RT, I usually pause at this point and visually back track along the trajectory of fire and look for something that may conceal a enemy, like bushes or trees, a small height elevation or a building. This is the most likely location of the shooter. Now areas fire into this area to hopefully surpress or kill the hidden enemy.

Assuming your lead units make it to the waypoint of your short leg, organize them into overwatch positions and move your rear elements forward and into overwatch positions. I prefer to 'caterpillar' move where the rear elements move up to the forward elements rather than 'bound', where the rear elements pass the forward elements and become the new 'leads' but either method works. Keep your bounds short. Use smoke on longer bounds you have to make.

If engaged, return fire decisively. If you are in a situation where you have only one vehicle or section who can engage multiple enemy, your will ultimately lose out in the firefight. Pop smoke and move back out of observation. Your aim is to make the fight as unfair as possible. You want two or three sections/vehicles beating on one enemy.

If you are heavy into it, only move when the enemy is suppressed (pinned), so time your moves for just after you hit the enemy with effective fire of some sort and keep the move short. Supressed enemies either will not fire back or their fire is ineffective.

Hope that helps. Do note that most of the tactics I use work optimally in RT so if you use WEGO, you have to adapt them somewhat.

Hope that helps.

[Erwin]

Wot he said. Being patient is key (and also a frustrating aspect of CM2). Many times you have to start with a cautious approach with much waiting around for a few minutes letting your units with binoculars watch for something and also while air strikes go in and recon and hopefully kill things your guys can't see.

80%-90% I find I send in inf first with maybe scout vehicles if I have anything cheap. I find that one can usually ID and kill the ATGM's and only then bring up the purty valuable but delicate armor to blow the hell out of everyone else.

With this formula in many/most (but not all) scenarios, the CMSF game teaches us it is better to have a platoon of cheap Light Armored HE throwers (like those Strykers we all hate) rather than a single expensive tank. ie: Better to have 3+ sets of HE heading out simultaneously.

[jnt62006]

Check out my tutorial blog at http://cmsfwarchest.blogspot.com

Particularly the one labeled Cain and Abel. I follow many of the same principles that BlackMoria advocates. Its really all about a good terrain analysis (both to pick covered and concealed routes as well as likely enemy positions) and planning ahead to ensure you have the assets available and in place to suppress any suspected or known enemy positions.

Erwin's approach is a lot more gamey (ie unrealistic) but it works as well, just depends on your desired style of play. It gets a little more difficult if you approach the game as if the guys in the "cheap" seats are people too.

Dont know why anyone would have issues with the Striker. Its a taxi that deposits a full rifle squad where you need it (not the smaller squads the IFVs carry). Its not designed to withstand anything bigger than 14.5mm. If you dont try to get it to do what its not designed to do, than it works great. Great supporting fires asset as well, provided there isn't a great local anti armor threat. Best to keep in mind the Striker is a product of the COIN fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not designed or intended for use in an environment where there is a high ATGM threat. I seriously doubt the Israelis will be buying very many. For example, the striker units portrayed in the Syria scenario, in reality, would probably enter the fight during the cleanup/stability phase of the operation, not as spearheading assault units.

[Erwin]

jnt is correct that my approach is unrealistic in RL but works in the game, because the game itself is somewhat unrealistic except for certain well-defined parameters where I can see some training potential (assuming no DoD V&V requirements which CMSF would completely fail).

Because I find that using "realistic" tactics in CMSF often (but maybe not always) results in a worse result, I feel one needs to regard CMSF as a game and therefore requires "gaming the game."

As I mentioned some time ago, when a bunch of us developers and gamers fought real life armored officers using Lunsford's Decisive Action, we wiped the floor with the officers.

It didn't mean that our tactics were sound in RL, but they were sound in the game.

It's just a petty peeve I have that we may feud over forever, but I hope you know that it's not personal jnt.

[jnt62006]

No, Erwin, I stopped taking anything a total stranger said about me or in disagreement with me personally a long time ago.

I would be interested to know if the Armor officers had anybody on their team who understood the game and how to use it to the same degree you guys would have. Are you saying that all things the same, their plan just sucked? Or was it more along the lines of their plan didnt really matter since they lacked the knowledge of how to really see it through effectively in the game?

If the former is the case than they probably deserved to get their butts handed to them by some button pushers.

I tend to think CMSF would be a better platform for the army/marines to use for company and battalion level sims. Particularly in small group classrooms. Definitely better than VBS2 (ArmA2). But some politician/lobbyist got the whole enchilada handed to the VBS2 guys. And now we are stuck trying to make it fit at all levels. Bureaucracy at its finest.

[Erwin]

The Army team was led by the creator of Decisive Action, the redoubtable LtCol Jim Lunsford, who designed the Decisive Action game precisely to train his officers there present. So, yes, they may have had an advantage.

Us developer/gamer/contractors were experienced gamers but only a couple of us had seen/played DA at that time. We simply saw opportunities in the game that the oppo did not - presumably cos they were hidebound by RL doctrine.

The lesson/moral of the exercise was that the instructor input was critical to ensure appropriate learning.

By itself, games like DA and CMSF can easily teach the wrong lessons as the RL tactics may easily get you killed in the game and the winning tactics will probably get you killed in RL.

But sadly, despite asking, we we were not allowed to subsequently try our winning tactics in RL to check.

Thus the US lost forever some of it's greatest military thinkers, and we all saw what happened next in Iraq and the other place.

<dry joke>

[Euri]

By itself, games like DA and CMSF can easily teach the wrong lessons as the RL tactics may easily get you killed in the game and the winning tactics will probably get you killed in RL.

But sadly, despite asking, we we were not allowed to subsequently try our winning tactics in RL to check.

Thus the US lost forever some of it's greatest military thinkers, and we all saw what happened next in Iraq and the other place.

I read from the my great book of platitudes .... "war is continuation of politics by other means"

In RL USA and even more Western European Countries do not entertain the idea of sending boys thousand of miles away from home and then returning in bodybags nor blowing away lives of local population. In contrast, the spirit in WWII was completely different. Everybody had a deep conviction that was fighting for his liberty, country and families and the shape of future world (fascism vs freedom)

That is way I am 100% supportive of the casualty restriction in CMSF which IMHO pushes the player to employ more RL (in the context of modern warfare) operations as opposed to more "Patton-like" tactics which are perfectly apt to a full scale - no holds barred - war and of course to the CM2 Normandy.

All in all it depends how one chooses to "play the game"

P.S. I used to be a fan of CM1 and WWII but now i am fully for CMSF

:-)

[Hairy Pie]

An interesting post. I'd like to know more about what you guys mean by overwatch positions? I understand the concept of overwatch, but I've found that this means putting your AFV's in static positions with line of sight over long distances, exposing them to the very same threat's you're trying to avoid.

jnt62006 I read your Kane and Able tutorial, which was very useful to me, but I expected to see a AAR to see how it panned out? I'm playing that scenario at the moment and so would like to have something to compare my results with.

[Euri]

Hairy

I usually read things "diagonally" trying to catch concepts which are new and original to me.

I applied the same unfair treatment to jnt62006's blog :-)

I pinpointed however two concepts which were eye opening revelations to me (as I have said i have no military background). Namely Avenues of Approach and Lines of sight (to those AoAs). Jnt62006 did a great job making me understand these two things.

Who do I apply this knowledge to overwatch positions? Simple. Before establishing a high value asset there, I suppress (should I say...obliterate) the key points providing key Lines of Sight on this position. Thus i curtail the probabilities of an unexpected ATMG will be lunched at my asset.

[Hairy Pie]

I just re-visited jnt62006's blog, and noticed that there's a video of the mission on You Tube. I will watch tonight with interest!

[Hairy Pie]

Watched the first seven videos of jnt62006 Cain and Able mission last night, and I'm well impressed! I noticed that there was a hell of a lot of supression of the buildings in the first objective, including an artillery barrage with airbursts to target personel, which I thought was a bit naughty given the level of civilian presence mentioned in the briefing?

[jnt62006]

The reported civilian presence kept me from shelling the objective BEFORE I attempted to take it. Once I start taking substantial and effective fire from the town, all bets are off. I used the "antipersonnel" option in order to prevent damage to the structures. Intent being to clear the rooftops and suppress any other enemy units in the area.

[Hooahguy]

What I do is send FOs to overwatch positions and send in a Stryker to briefly enter the ATGMs LOS, then quickly pop smoke/reverse so it wont get hit. After the ATGM gave away its position, I call in immediate fire support.

But I only tried this once.

[DaveDash]

What I do is send FOs to overwatch positions and send in a Stryker to briefly enter the ATGMs LOS, then quickly pop smoke/reverse so it wont get hit. After the ATGM gave away its position, I call in immediate fire support.

But I only tried this once.

This won't save you against AT-14's, so pay special attention to the briefing.

I haven't found an adequite way of dealing with AT-14's that doesnt have luck as a factor. You are either going to risk losing vehicles, or risk losing a higher number of infantry due to minimal vehicle support. It's a call you have to make.

BLUEFOR tanks in hull down positions have a good chance of surviving (or the AT-14 missing) them. However, I'd be very careful of this with the Leo2 since based on my testing, it is a lot weaker on the front armour than the other BLUEFOR tanks. Again though this relies on luck. Some figures for you based on my testing: Attrition Rates (Chance of being destroyed by AT-14 hitting the front in hull down) M1A2 ~0%, M1A1 varients and Challey 2: ~10%, Leo 2: 33%

If you have air support such as Helos, they are also pretty good at taking out AT-14s. During the setup phase, put area fire CAS targets over likely ATGM spots. Still luck is involved. Unfortunately they also don't tell you WHAT they are engaging, so you have no idea if it's an ATGM or regular infantry.

And finally calling down a ton of artillery and moving from cover to cover is a good way of advancing and closing the distance between you and them, so you have a better chance of spotting and engaging them.

You also really need to do your maths. Special Forces usually have 4 AT-14 sections, regular Syrian infantry usually have 2 AT-4s and 2 SPGs, etc etc. So pay attention to likely spots based on what the briefing tells you is there, and then count how many ATGM teams you have identified and destroyed.

All the other REDFOR ATGM's don't really stand a chance if you have Tanks as long as you keep your tanks in hull down facing the ATGM's, but if you only have IFV's the same logic applies as Tanks vs AT-14s.

Here is a youtube channel of my playing "Milk Run", the USMC campaign when you have to deal with ATGM's (not AT-14s)

The action is slow to start in the beginning due to a recon phase, so skip to video PART 4 or so when my tanks show up.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=987B6129550CAD46

[bodkin]

Preping suspected or potential ATGM launcher positions with airburst artillery is a tactic I've used with good results in the past. However the issue of near invulnerability of troops on rooftops after the last patch makes things more difficult in urban terrain.

[Lanzfeld]

Preping suspected or potential ATGM launcher positions with airburst artillery is a tactic I've used with good results in the past. However the issue of near invulnerability of troops on rooftops after the last patch makes things more difficult in urban terrain.

Use "general" arty on rooftops as it seems to do the trick until the next patch comes out.

[Euri]

However the issue of near invulnerability of troops on rooftops after the last patch makes things more difficult in urban terrain.

Is this for fact? I do not think so. I use to preemptively blast with anti-personnel shells rooftops and I believe it is effective

[Erwin]

If you have airpower, helicopters especially, they are great for recon, spotting and killing enemy units that are not in LOS... esp ATGM's.

[bodkin]

Is this for fact? I do not think so. I use to preemptively blast with anti-personnel shells rooftops and I believe it is effective

At the moment 155mm arty will do the trick but things like 60 or 81mm mortars are pretty much useless.

[DaveDash]

At the moment 155mm arty will do the trick but things like 60 or 81mm mortars are pretty much useless.

Not im my experience, and I've used them a lot in the Canadian campaign. Weakened? Yes. Need a tweak back in the other direction? Yes. Pretty much useless? No.

JDAMS are the biggest "WTF" at the moment.